Blake Lively has recently made headlines by withdrawing her subpoena against Perez Hilton in her ongoing lawsuit against Justin Baldoni. This development marks a significant turn in a legal battle that has captured public attention, particularly due to the high-profile nature of the individuals involved.
Court documents obtained by Page Six reveal that Lively submitted her request to withdraw the subpoena on a Friday, shortly after Hilton, who had been representing himself, secured legal representation from the ACLU of Nevada. This shift in Hilton’s legal strategy appears to have influenced Lively’s decision, as Hilton expressed confidence that her withdrawal was directly linked to the ACLU’s involvement.
Hilton, the founder of the celebrity gossip website that bears his name, was subpoenaed by Lively in July. The actress alleged that Hilton collaborated with Baldoni, her co-star and director in the film “It Ends With Us,” to orchestrate a smear campaign against her. Lively’s lawsuit against Baldoni includes serious allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, adding layers of complexity to the case.
In a statement to Page Six, Hilton asserted, “Nobody told me to write anything negative about her. Nobody paid me to write anything negative about her.” He described his emotional state leading up to the court hearing as a mix of exhaustion, relief, cautious optimism, and tempered confidence. Hilton characterized the situation as a “real-life David vs. Goliath,” positioning himself and Baldoni as the underdogs against Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, who is also a prominent figure in Hollywood.
Hilton’s legal team has argued that the subpoena was overly broad and burdensome, threatening his journalistic sources and work product. He emphasized that he is not being sued and maintained that he did nothing wrong. Lively, on the other hand, filed a cross-motion to compel, arguing that Hilton does not adhere to the principles of independent journalism, which she believes undermines his claims to journalistic protections.
The tension between Lively and Hilton escalated as Hilton defended his right to express opinions about Lively without external influence. He insisted that his commentary was organic and not orchestrated, countering Lively’s assertions that he was part of a coordinated effort against her.
Baldoni has also entered the fray, countersuing Lively and Reynolds for defamation and extortion. However, his lawsuit was dismissed on technical grounds, as noted by Hilton. The legal battles are set to continue, with both Lively and Baldoni expected to testify in March 2026.
As this case unfolds, it highlights the intricate dynamics of celebrity culture, media influence, and the legal system. The involvement of high-profile figures like Lively and Hilton adds a layer of intrigue, making it a topic of interest not just for fans but also for those following the evolving landscape of celebrity litigation.
